Posted originally on the conservative on April 30, 2022 | Sundance
Catherine Englebrecht appeared on The War Room with Steve Bannon {Direct Rumble Link} to outline the evidence of election fraud that took place in 2020 through the use of ballot harvesting and ballot mules. The receipts Englebrecht and True The Vote have gathered are the primary evidence in an explosive documentary that is going to be released shortly called “2000 Mules.”
The 2020 vote in key county precincts was manipulated by illegal and fraudulent ballot harvesting. Wayne county, Michigan; Philadelphia county, Pennsylvania; Maricopa county, Arizona; Clark county, Nevada; Dane county, Wisconsin; and Fulton county, Georgia. True the Vote has the documentary evidence, and video from the drop boxes, outlining how the ballot harvesting took place. However, corrupt local and state officials have refused to investigate the evidence because the political scandal is extreme in consequence.
Importantly, during the interview with Steve Bannon, Catherine Englebrecht notes the systemic corruption by Georgia Republican Governor Brian Kemp, and his entire administration, as one concrete example of the willful fraud that cuts across party lines. WATCH:
Incumbent Governor Brian Kemp is seeking reelection for the governors office. The primary is May 24, 2022. He is being challenged by David Perdue, who has been endorsed by President Trump. Unfortunately, Georgia utilizes an open primary system, in which registered voters do not have to be members of a party to vote in that party’s primary. It is highly likely, to a predictable certainty, that Democrats in Georgia will be activated to vote for Brian Kemp in May, setting up a general election contest in November between Kemp and Democrat Stacy Abrams who is running unopposed.
I hope you will invest 20 minutes of your time watching the discussion to get a more fulsome perspective on the scale of political corruption that Ms. Englebrecht and her group have been fighting for more than a year. The discussion about the GOPe corruption in Georgia is sickening.
Many people have pushed a narrative that essentially says we must move on from the 2020 fraud. However, there is no moving beyond the illegal activity that surrounds a completely fraudulent election. The issues from 2020 must be brought to the full sunlight of the American people in order to provide accurate context for all the current Biden administration activity, that, at it’s core, is intended to protect the U.S. government from what took place.
In an effort to keep the Daily Open Thread a little more open topic we are going to start a new daily thread for “Presidential Politics”. Please use this thread to post anything relating to the JoeBama Administration and Presidency.
“This is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for years and I cannot recall it ever happening. It may be that our task is impossible. Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can’t be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won’t be done. The Founders’ Republic, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost.”
“But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.”
Posted originally on the conservative tree houss April 29, 2022 | Sundance
The first principle in battling against the Alinsky crew is to not to accept their terminology. Controlling language is a specific tactic of the professional political left. We used to call it labeling, but modern leftists moved beyond labels into the creation of new definitions. Modern leftists now use two different strategies depending on their target: (1) create new words, the traditional labeling; and (2) redefine existing words.
In this interview Naomi Wolf is one of the few people I have seen who correctly starts her discussion by dispatching the linguistics and framing her own baseline argument. All politicians and candidates for office should watch how Wolf responds to the first question from Tucker Carlson, and then makes the better argument.
Wolf doesn’t waste time debating “misinformation”, “disinformation”, or “malinformation”, instead she accurately just says those things do not exist. Information stands undefined. From that position there are truth and lies. Her approach is exactly correct. Do not accept the insanity of the Alinsky language effort. A refreshing and really good interview, WATCH:
On January 13, 2022, the fraudulent and managed autocrat, the installed occupant of the White House, gave instructions to his fellow travelers in Big Tech, and I quote:
“I make a special appeal to social media companies and media outlets: Please deal with the misinformation and disinformation that’s on your shows. It has to stop.” ~ Joe Biden
It was crystal clear what Joe Biden was telling his allies in social media to do. There is information the Government wants us to hear, and everything else is disinformation or misinformation the U.S. Govt disapproves of.
Immediately CTH encountered criticism for our position on information. However, Wolf understands exactly what we have discussed:
…”There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation”. There is only information you accept and information you do not accept. You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”… (link)
Ultimately, the government is not trying to control words, they are trying to control thoughts.
Belgium researchers embarked on a study that hopefully can shape future vaccination programs targeting COVID-19. In a recently published study, these scientists assessed the risk factors associated with developing COVID-19 after vaccination. The results of which were presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) in Lisbon, Portugal, (23-26 April). It turns out the mRNA-based vaccines afford more protection than those immunized with the AstraZeneca/Oxford viral vector vaccine.
So, what are breakthrough infections? They are characterized when the pathogen evades vaccine-induced bodies, thereby infecting the inoculated person. In this study, Dr. Veerle Stouten and colleagues at Sciensano, the National Public Health Institute of Belgium, investigated the incidence of breakthrough infections associated with four different COVID-19 vaccine brands. These brands included Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), Oxford/AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S).
The Study
More than 80% of adults in Belgium were fully vaccinated (received two doses) by August 11, 2021.
The study included all people in Belgium aged 18-plus who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 between February 1 and December 5, 2021. The 8,062,000 participants were followed up for an average of 150 days, from 14 days after their second dose.
4.6% of the participants (373,070) were reported to have a breakthrough infection. This figure does not, however, take into account how long each participant was followed-up after the study. When this is factored in, the incidence rate is 11.2 per 100 person-years. This means that if participants were followed up for one year, 11.2 would be expected to develop a breakthrough infection.
Results
Researchers share that “breakthrough infections were more common in those who had received viral vector vaccines than mRNA vaccines. Those who had previously had Covid had a lower risk of breakthrough infections.”
Overall, those vaccinated with a viral vector vaccine (Oxford/AstraZeneca or Janssen) had a higher risk of a breakthrough infection than those vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna).
In addition, “There was a higher incidence of breakthrough infections in younger age groups (18-64 year olds) than in older age groups (65-84 or 85-plus year olds), which might be due to differences in social behavior.”
Natural immunity also comes into play here. Researchers observed from the analysis that “those with a prior COVID-19 infection before vaccination were 77% less likely to have a breakthrough infection than those who hadn’t had Covid previously.”
Significant Implications
Such information regarding breakthrough infections can be helpful when designing vaccination programs, including decisions about who would benefit most from a booster dose and the timing and type of vaccine to be used.
Dr. Stouten adds: “We identified risk factors associated with breakthrough infections, such as vaccination with adenoviral-vector vaccines, which could help inform future decisions on booster vaccination strategies internationally.
Lead Research/Investigator
Dr. Veerle Stouten, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium
Belgium researchers embarked on a study that hopefully can shape future vaccination programs targeting COVID-19. In a recently published study, these scientists assessed the risk factors associated with developing COVID-19 after vaccination. The results of which were presented at this year’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID) in Lisbon, Portugal, (23-26 April). It turns out the mRNA-based vaccines afford more protection than those immunized with the AstraZeneca/Oxford viral vector vaccine.
So, what are breakthrough infections? They are characterized when the pathogen evades vaccine-induced bodies, thereby infecting the inoculated person. In this study, Dr. Veerle Stouten and colleagues at Sciensano, the National Public Health Institute of Belgium, investigated the incidence of breakthrough infections associated with four different COVID-19 vaccine brands. These brands included Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), Oxford/AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and Janssen (Ad26.COV2.S).
A SingleCare Team study revealed the majority of the US population takes some form of a prescription pill. The insurance agency found that the number of people reliant on prescriptions significantly rose after the pandemic.In fact, medications for mental health issues are on the rise. The company reported a 70% increase in prescriptions for the antidepressant Lexapro, a 31% increase in Zoloft, a 21% increase in Trazadone, a 20% increase in Prozac, and a 16% increase in Adderall. The agency noted that the American Psychological Association reported an uptick in individuals self-medicating illegally with opioids as well.
Currently, around 66% of adults in the US are reliant on Big Pharma. Canada is in a similar situation, albeit with lower prescription costs, with 65% of their adult population on prescription medicine. In contrast, only 26% of adults in the UK and 35% of adults in Australia are reliant on medications.
Why are people in the US and Canada more likely to take prescription medication? One could argue the US population is not as healthy as other nations due to obesity and limited walkable cities, but that does not account for the large disparity. One big reason is marketing – but that does not apply in Canada. Only in the US do you see commercials and billboards promising a pill to cure the woes of life. It is not common practice in other countries for people to ask their doctor for a specific medicine.
This all comes down to business and corporate profits. The average American takes FOUR different pills each day. So over 131 million Americans are reliant on at least one medication. Citizens in the US spend more than any nation on prescription drugs, with the average consumer spending $1,229. Canadians spend around $879.
In addition to the billions Big Pharma made on COVID-related drugs and vaccines, they have also profited from COVID restrictions deteriorating the public’s mental health. In mid-June 2020, when many restrictions began to ease, SingleCare reported a 50% increase in antidepressant medication. The same increase was reported during the third week of March when lockdowns began. “Between the concern over job loss, isolation, and general anxiety, this growing trend in antidepressants over the past few months may well be due to the pandemic’s impact on mental health,” Ramzi Yacoub, Pharm.D., the chief pharmacy officer at SingleCare stated. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies believe the need for prescription drugs will only continue. Thanks to COVID, antidepressants are now the most prescribed medication in the US and the second-most prescribed medication in Canada.
Democrats in Rhode Island have prepared legislation that could double taxes for parents of unvaccinated children. Senator Sam Bell, who is championing the bill, claims that there is a need for a universal mandate. Under the proposed law, unvaccinated residents would face a $50 monthly fine for noncompliance. Employers would also be required to mandate vaccines for all employees or face a $5,000 fine per violation. The biggest burden – “Any person who violates this chapter shall be required to pay a monthly civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00) and shall oweTWICE THE AMOUNT OF PERSONAL INCOME TAXES.”
To receive an exemption for a minor, three separate doctors must confirm that the child is “not fit for immunization.” Then the state would need to investigate each claim and determine whether or not the parents should be financially ruined. So even if three different doctors say that a child should not be vaccinated, the state may override them.
Biden lost his bid to implement a federal vaccine for employers last year, but the battle is not over. State lawmakers still have the capabilities to force compliance through any means possible. Bell wants to make the state of Rhode Island unlivable for the unvaccinated. While this is unlikely to pass, the fact that they are still attempting to force vaccinations in April 2022 shows that the war on medical freedom has not ceased.
A March 16 opinion piece in The BMJ raises some serious questions about what they call, “The illusion of evidence based medicine.” Authors Jon Jureidini and Leemon B. McHenry posit that the prominence of evidence-based medicine constituted a paradigm shift, meant to give a solid foundation in science for our medical care system. But the validity of the paradigm depends of accurate data from clinical trials, and most of these are conducted by the pharma industry and then published under the name of “senior academics.” Public release of what had been confidential pharma industry documents gives the medical world key insights into the level to which pharma-sponsored trials are mischaracterized. Getting a bit philosophical, The BMJ argues that critical rationalism is key for both the integrity of science and the role of science, “in an open, democratic society.” But this ideal is under threat by corporate power, a world in which, “financial interests trump the common good.” The dominance of massive pharma firms involves some competition, but all these players are united in working to expand the general pharma market. And while what the authors call, “free market champions” have embraced privatization, “the unintended, long-term consequences for medicine have been severe.”
Medical Schools Take Neo-Liberal Approach
Knowledge and data ownership hamper progress in science due to the fact that the pharma industry tends to suppress negative trial outcomes, not report adverse events, and not share their raw data with the research community. To quote The BMJ, “Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.” And duty to shareholders’ “hierarchical power structures” prioritizes both product loyalty and public relations over integrity. Further, while our fancier universities face influence from their endowments, “they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society.” And facing reduced government funding, these schools have taken the, “neo-liberal market approach,” seeking out pharma funding, with strings attached.
Doctors as “Product Champions”
And thus, science departments at a broad swath of our universities can be seen as “instruments of industry.” When you combine firm-level control of the research agenda and the “ghosting writing of medical journal articles and continuing medical education,” scholars can transform into promotors of commercial products. Further, media reports of “industry-academe partnerships[s]” add to a general mistrust of our academic institutions that betrays the very vision of an open society. And what The BMJ calls the “corporate university” itself undermines the idea of academic leadership. Where once deans were folks with “distinguished contributions to their disciplines,” now they are more of fundraisers/academic managers who must show their “profitability” and ability to attract corporate sponsorship. And medical academia’s stars, who tend to be opinion leaders, advance their careers via industry opportunities. These folks are hired based largely on their influence on the “prescribing habits” of other doctors. The opinion leaders are also often well-paid by pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus in the context of presenting results of pharma industry trials. And instead of being “independent, disinterested scientists,” they can become “product champions,” in the parlance of marketing executives.
Reforms Called For
Proposals for reform can include, “liberation of regulators from drug company funding; taxation imposed on pharmaceutical companies to allow public funding of independent trials; and, perhaps most importantly, anonymized individual patient level trial data posted, along with study protocols, on suitably accessible websites so that third parties, self-nominated or commissioned by health technology agencies, could rigorously evaluate the methodology and trial results.” For readers seeking more information, the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 7.1.4 sets out that organization’s policies on conflicts of interest in industry-funded research.
A March 16 opinion piece in The BMJ raises some serious questions about what they call, “The illusion of evidence based medicine.” Authors Jon Jureidini and Leemon B. McHenry posit that the prominence of evidence-based medicine constituted a paradigm shift, meant to give a solid foundation in science for our medical care system. But the validity of the paradigm depends of accurate data from clinical trials, and most of these are conducted by the pharma industry and then published under the name of “senior academics.” Public release of what had been confidential pharma industry documents gives the medical world key insights into the level to which pharma-sponsored trials are mischaracterized. Getting a bit philosophical, The BMJ argues that critical rationalism is key for both the integrity of science and the role of science, “in an open, democratic society.” But this ideal is under threat by corporate power, a world in which, “financial interests trump the common good.” The dominance of massive pharma firms involves some competition, but all these players are united in working to expand the general pharma market. And while what the authors call, “free market champions” have embraced privatization, “the unintended, long-term consequences for medicine have been severe.”
TrialSite recently shared that a handful of states have proposed bills to ensure ivermectin is available to treat COVID-19 via a legitimate physician’s prescription. Those states include Indiana, Kansas, and New Hampshire. Recently, a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin, Dr. Paul Marik, one of the co-founders of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), discussed the pending New Hampshire ivermectin legislation with conservative news platform, America’s Voice Network.
Marik, board certified in Internal Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, Neurocritical Care, and Nutrition Science, is a key opinion leader who has worked in numerous hospitals and health systems from South Africa, UK, and of course, the United States where he is most recently affiliated with Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) as well as other medical institutions. Not a stranger to controversy, or for that matter, pushing the comfort boundaries of the medical establishment, Marik isn’t a lightweight, with over 400 peer-reviewed journal articles, 50 book chapters, and author credits for four critical care books.
Recently, he filed a lawsuit against his hospital over the institution’s ban on various therapies including ivermectin, which happens to be a core therapy in his and his colleagues MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19. He and colleagues such as Dr. Pierre Kory experienced what they declare is censorship, as key journals had reviewed and accepted manuscripts, such as with the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, only to see the approvals retracted. Physicians such as those affiliated with the FLCCC represent prominent figures at this weekend’s medical freedom march.
The alternative media reporter, Heather Mullins, shared that New Hampshire’s bill is now “sponsored” and must still “go through some hurdles to get passed,” but if done so will “essentially make ivermectin available over the counter.” According to the TrialSite report, the proposed bill would authorize access at the pharmacy via a “standing order” which generally indicates authorization for nurses, pharmacists, and other appropriately credentialed health care professionals that if directed by state law, empowers the direct care and admonition of a vaccine or therapy (in this case ivermectin) based on an approved medical doctor-based approved protocol.
TrialSite didn’t report that Paul Marik testified for the proposed bill in New Hampshire. Mullins reports that Marik and other front-line physicians have been on the record that if ivermectin had been allowed for use as an early at-home prophylactic treatment targeting COVID-19, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved.
The Interview
Prior to the testimony in New Hampshire, Dr. Marik shared that 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin have been administered around the world, “changing the face of parasitic diseases on this planet.” Marik declared that ivermectin “is probably the second most important drug ever invented” [the drug’s inventors did win a Nobel Prize and the drug is on the World Health Organization Essential Drug List].
Declaring that the drug is cheap, safe, and “highly effective against SARS-CoV-2, and if used more widely this drug could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”
Referring to its use in many other countries, the critical care physician went on the record that it’s a “lifesaving drug.”
Why the pushback against ivermectin? Marik, now somewhat liberated given he isn’t dependent on his employer Sentara, let loose declaring, “There are multiple reasons, and this is probably generated by Big Pharma, government, and big corporations who don’t like cheap repurposed drugs.” He continued, “So this is a war on cheap, repurposed drugs.” Emphasizing the goals of ivermectin’s adversaries, Marik stated, “They want you to use expensive designer drugs which in fact don’t work.”
In clarifying his understanding of the New Hampshire bill, Marik declared it is proposing to make ivermectin available over the counter [again via standing order] and according to the critical care doctor, it makes sense given the drug’s safety profile— “the drug is safer than Tylenol,” stated Marik. Repeating again the drug’s safety profile makes it safer than Tylenol, he went on the record “People should be given access to this drug in order to prevent and treat COVID.”
Marik espoused the critical FLCCC view that early treatment for COVID-19 absolutely represents a critical care strategy: simply waiting at home for a symptomatic phase, prompting a trip to the hospital raises significant danger for severe disease and worse.
The Controversy
According to Heather Mullins’ report, there has been a coordinated effort to censor the robust data pointing to at least some ivermectin-based efficacy around the world. Ivermectin study watchers often point to the website which tracks all ivermectin studies in a clean, orderly series of tables and graphs. While the majority of the 75 completed studies point to positive data points, the mainstream media and medical establishments in North America, Europe, and Australia have limited the number of studies within the research portfolio that they even acknowledge to just a handful. The others? These studies are dismissed because of bad quality.
A couple of prominent studies showed no benefit, yet, at least one of them became surrounded with controversy and allegations among some industry watchers of conflict of interest. TrialSite notes this hasn’t been proven, and one study in Egypt that was part of a couple of meta-analysis studies turned out to have manipulated data. Yet even with the questionable Egyptian study, TrialSite’s Sonia Elijah’s investigation raised some disturbing questions in “How Ivermectin became a Target for the Fraud Detectives.”
TrialSite has chronicled ivermectin studies all over the world, including the ICON study done in Broward County early on during the pandemic. Of course, this study wasn’t a randomized controlled trial, thus limiting its impact. Interviews with the head of the largest hospital in the Dominican Republic as well as a well-respected investigator in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and interactions with doctors in Nigeria, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and India found positive data points. TrialSite even sponsored an objective documentary in Peru, one of the first nations to accept the use of the drug for the novel coronavirus.
After numerous interviews, study write-ups, and real-world observations, the case for ivermectin should be taken seriously. The U.S. National Institute of Health is financing an ivermectin-based study called ACTIV-6, while the University of Minnesota led one of the largest ongoing ivermectin studies called COVID-OUT.
The drug does have a proven safety profile at doses currently approved for parasitic indications. However, claims that higher dosages are just as safe as Tylenol might be a stretch—rather that claim would be associated with currently approved indications. Yet, it’s not a stretch to declare the drug is generally safe if taken off-label under the guidance of a licensed, competent physician.
The FDA’s behavior during this pandemic in association with ivermectin has been questionable, to say the least. Issuing warnings to the public not to use the animal variety of the drug, they emphasized that for the human version, it should be used only in clinical trials. TrialSite’s Sonia Elijah’s piece on obtaining FDA emails suggested the possibility of some form of disinformation campaign emanating from the world’s most respected food and drug regulatory body—an activity, if true, is beneath this organization.
FDA letters to medical and pharmacy boards and medical societies have led to considerable pressure on doctors employed by health systems and pharmacies not to allow ivermectin prescriptions off-label for COVID-19. In addition to a survey substantiating this trend, TrialSite chronicles plenty of instances evidencing efforts to block access. The TrialSite survey evidenced the effectiveness of an ongoing purge.
While there has been much controversy following the drug, Marik, Kory, and others actually visited the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel to discuss the evidence of efficacy against SARS-Cov-2 in early 2021.
from use only in clinical trials to the following recommendation:
There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.
Yet if the drug is generally safe and a licensed physician along with an appropriately consenting patient agree to an off-label regimen, why would this vary from other standard off-label use cases that no one makes a fuss about? What is it about COVID? TrialSite has observed based on the severity and intensity of the pandemic, more federal involvement, and intervention in healthcare. Concerns of ivermectin took off when government, industry, and regulators discovered that prescriptions skyrocketed from 3,000 per week pre-pandemic to nearly 90,000 per week during the second year of the pandemic.
TrialSite recently reported on a study led by a University of Michigan doctor showing that at least $130 million in insurance claims for the drug treating COVID-19 in 2021—that figure is probably more than double when counting all the cash-based prescriptions.
Call to Action: What are your thoughts? Is the federal government simply trying to protect people by blocking access to ivermectin or is this part of some regulatory capture movement? Does this mean industry’s interest supersedes patients? Perhaps, the truth is more nuanced. While this TrialSite fact check on the fact checkers (Ivermectin) could be updated, its core arguments are sound.
TrialSite recently shared that a handful of states have proposed bills to ensure ivermectin is available to treat COVID-19 via a legitimate physician’s prescription. Those states include Indiana, Kansas, and New Hampshire. Recently, a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin, Dr. Paul Marik, one of the co-founders of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), discussed the pending New Hampshire ivermectin legislation with conservative news platform, America’s Voice Network.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 21, 2022 | Sundance
Someone might want to knock Anthony Fauci down a few pegs from his high-horse position. In this brief video, Fauci was asked for his opinion on the recent federal court ruling that the CDC exceeded its authority with a federal transportation mask mandate.
According to Fauci, the CDC bureaucratic science should supersede any constitutional, legal or limiting positions by the legislative or judicial branches of government. In essence he’s saying the CDC is above the law. WATCH:
The CDC is a subservient regulatory agency just like every other agency within government and is just as subject to the laws and legal limitations of the constitution as any other agency would be. However, in the worldview of Fauci and the Branch Covidians, the power of science puts them above the law.
In semi-related news…. “Philadelphia will end its COVID-19 indoor mask mandate less than a week after reinstating it, city health officials said Thursday night.” {LINK}
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 20, 2022 | Sundance
Ideological leftism is contingent upon appeasing the most insane elements of the extreme left.
As a consequence, the Biden political CDC has announced they need the Biden political DOJ to try and get the federal mask mandate put back into place.
CDC Announcement: “To protect CDC’s public health authority beyond the ongoing assessment announced last week, CDC has asked DOJ to proceed with an appeal in Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc., et al., v. Biden, et al. It is CDC’s continuing assessment that at this time an order requiring masking in the indoor transportation corridor remains necessary for the public health.” (LINK)
According to NBC News, “the Justice Department said that it has filed a notice of appeal “in light of today’s assessment by the CDC” in a statement late Wednesday afternoon.” (LINK)
The Covidians who define themselves by their adherence to the dictates of the U.S. government, are happy. However, in an election year where the overwhelming majority of the American people have had enough of this political science, this decision fuels an angry rebuke.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 